Quote:
Originally Posted by NoirMan
What’s clear is that you didn’t understand what you read. But that’s ok, I wouldn’t necessarily expect you to. And the first guy he killed didn’t have a weapon. Unless you believe you can shoot someone for threatening to beat you up with harsh words or at worst their fists. Once again, I wouldn’t expect you to understand.
|
So, a guy tells you that the next time he sees you, he will kill you. He sees you, starts running towards you saying "I'm going to kill you" ( a hypothetical ). You have a weapon but see that he doesn't have a gun or a knife but does have a skateboard, ready to bash you with it AND......
you drop your gun thinking it wouldn't be fair or in your case legal to kill this man charging you with what could reasonable be called a weapon. It is your duty to fight with your fists.
Does this also apply to a 5' tall, 100 lb female, since the law applies equally to every man, woman or whatever? Must she fight this man with her fists because the law says she can't fire on an un-armed man? Nope. The law "allows" her/ him/ it, to act reasonably. All a juror has to do, is put themselves in the same situation
Did Michael Brown have a weapon when he was shot? Nope. Did Eric Holder prosecute Wilson for shooting Brown, an unarmed man? Nope.
Does that tell you anything about whether you can shoot an un-armed man counselor? Never mind. You are politically incapable of understanding why a Black AG wouldn't charge a White man for killing an un-armed Black man. Because it was legal to do so.
What this does illustrate, is people like you are perfectly willing to judge people based on your political ideology rather than what the law says. Thankfully, people like you don't get the final word.
